The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Cameron doesn’t understand the Scotland debate

Alex Salmond isn't interested in a "binding" referendum - he’s interested in winning a democratic mandate.

By James Maxwell Published 09 January 2012 17:31

In an interview on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday, David Cameron revealed that he was planning to bring forward proposals which he hoped would settle the "uncertainty" surrounding Scotland's constitutional future in a "fair, decisive and legal" way. This raised suspicions that the Prime Minister was about to call a pre-emptive, Westminster-led referendum on the break-up of Britain.

In the event, nothing so dramatic transpired. Instead, Cameron has made an offer to Alex Salmond: hold an independence poll within eighteen months on the basis of a straight-forward Yes/No question, and Westminster will grant formal legal status to whatever result it produces. Refuse, and any future referendum run by the Scottish Parliament will be nothing more than advisory -- a kind of glorified opinion poll.

There are a couple of reasons why this must have appeared to the Tory leader as a clever political manoeuvre. First of all, if Salmond were to accept, he would forfeit the power to set the timing and wording of the ballot, both of which will be crucial in determining the outcome of the vote. Secondly, it hands a degree of initiative back to the Unionist parties, which have so far struggled to contain the SNP's juggernaut momentum.

On closer inspection, however, Cameron's intervention represents a rather clumsy and unthinking lurch into a debate he obviously doesn't fully understand.　

The SNP is under no illusions about where constitutional authority in the UK lies. The nationalists know full well that for any referendum on Scottish secession to be binding, it would have to be ratified by the Westminster Parliament which remains - despite devolution - ultimately sovereign under the terms of the British constitution. It follows, then, that Alex Salmond has never intended to hold anything other than a non-binding or advisory referendum. What matters to him is that he secures a clear democratic mandate from the Scottish people to pursue the further transfer of powers from London to Edinburgh or, if he's really lucky, the creation of an independent Scottish state. The First Minister reckons he is more likely to get one or other of these things if he delays a poll until his preferred date of 2014 or 2015, after the full effects of the coalition's cuts have begun to bite and Scottish resentment toward the Tories un-mandated austerity drive has hit fever pitch.

But if the SNP rejects Cameron's offer -- and on the basis of this press release, it already has -- will it not be exposed to accusations of obstructionism? Is Salmond not taking a huge political risk by denying Scots the opportunity to vote sooner rather than later on an issue of such critical importance? One might think so. Yet, the opposition parties at Holyrood have been putting forward arguments like this literally every week since the SNP won a parliamentary majority last May and the only discernable effect has been to push nationalist poll ratings up, not down. At the last count, the SNP registered 51 per cent support, while Alex Salmond himself remains phenomenally popular.

So, before Cameron congratulates himself for having achieved what he thinks is an important political victory, he should ask himself a couple of questions. How often have Westminster politicians gotten into a tussle with Alex Salmond recently and won? Moreover, how seriously have they underestimated the resilience of Scottish nationalism and its appeal to Scottish voters? The Prime Minister may soon be forced to realise he is in a fight he probably can't win, with an opponent he can't quite comprehend.

Tags: Scottish independence SNP David Cameron Scotland

More from James Maxwell

56 comments

Mon, 2012-01-09 23:16 — Capitalist and Proud (not verified)

@Lox
C & P, you're spot on. There's no way that Germany or France would do anything to annoy a UK government, is there? Is reality biting yet?

Maybe my words were not well worded.

As for the UK, it is in the EU, Scotland will not be. It will be Scotland, and Alex, that will be doing the negotiating. The UK will not have to. It can also frame the debate and narrative. Something that Alex has had to himself.

As for economies, a country that buys a few billion pounds of goods compared to a country that buys hundreds of billions of pounds of goods. I know which country leaving could close factories in France, Germany, Spain and Italy. Scotland leaving I doubt any factory in Europe would notice. Do not underestimate how the size of a countries economy affects its political power. If you really think Germany, France, Italy or Spain are going to go to the wire for Scotland your mistaken. As for liking us, remember the simple rule, money talks.

As for your future, your a small country on the fringes of Europe. You have gas, oil, salmon, drinks, wood, a finance industry and a small manufacturing sector. You should be able to prosper.

Wed, 2012-01-11 00:07 — Benjamin Rae (not verified)

I've said nothing negative about English people as a whole. It's a crass, false generalisation to make. Means nothing and is tantamount to racism.
Any negativity I written has been directed at a corrupt political class who are failing English people every bit as much as Scots.
The fact you've lived in Scotland does not mean your informed on Scottish affairs. There's I'll informed people everywhere and proximity is no gaurentee knowledge

Tue, 2012-01-10 00:24 — DWB

It seems like Cameron secretly wants independence too. This is all leading up to a Westminster run referendum, and the inevitable Scottish backlash against the Tories.

Whatever party Scots voted for, the vast majority acknowledge that the SNP had a resounding win, and have the democratic right to go ahead on their planned timetable.

With an exception for the new 'Scottish' Labour leader - who is supporting David Cameron and continuing the 'head-in-the-sand' approach that led so many Scots to reject them.

Tue, 2012-01-10 00:26 — Lox (not verified)

C&P, thanks for the response. Frankly, I neither expect nor want Germany or France, or Italy or Spain-or England for that matter-to do anything for us.

I'd be happy to see us as a small country with no pretensions to political influence-only the influence we can gain by thriving economically. I'd add that my vision of an independent Scotland is probably different from many (most, I expect) SNP voters: I want a small enterprise-friendly state where it's easy for companies to be born, prosper and die in good time.

Tue, 2012-01-10 00:41 — C Baker

It's not bad to have a debate. There's recently been quite a lot of interest with regards to tuition fees for uk students and eu students, for those studying in Scotland.

What will independence mean in terms of currency, using the nhs etc? Maybe the relationship will be like that of the uk and the eu. Free movement of people and access to pensions and public services.

I'm trying to understand what financial independence means, as opposed to full independence. It's important to have this debate, if Salmond has the independence question on the agenda for 2014 anyway. It will have implications for people that wish to work in Scotland and also legal implications and also the other way round for Scots working in the rest of the uk. So yes, i think we should be talking about it now, if it is being mooted by the snp regularly.

That way, the conditions on offer will be clear and what full independence or devolution max etc actually means.

Tue, 2012-01-10 01:04 — FA

But why should Cameron give Salmond what he wants? Salmond wants a referendum which will say yes to independence, he doesn't care about how "fair" it is.

An early referendum is the best shot for unionists.

Personally I'm happy with whatever outcome

Tue, 2012-01-10 01:06 — FA

orderfromcha0s

"Flaws in my genius plan: None."

Here's a flaw. There are only three regions of the UK which are net contributors to the exchequer - London, South East England and East England (East Anglia). Who will pay for your southern English hating federation?

Tue, 2012-01-10 01:19 — FA

Lox

"If an independent Scotland wanted to join the EU (God forbid), I doubt we'd be blackballed."

You would. The major EU countries won't want to set a precedent for life to be easy for separatists. That matters far far more to them than an opportunity to supposedly piss London off. Why on earth do you think London WOULDN'T want Scotland to become a member of the EU? In fact the remnant UK would be the biggest advocate of Scottish access to Europe since a Scotland which is doing badly economically will affect the UK more than anyone else - with droves of unemployed Scots heading south of the border. However, there are numerous requirements to joining the EU which Scotland won't be able to meet (hell, France couldn't meet them if it was applying from scratch) so what London will squeeze out of Brussels for Holyrood will most likely be EEA membership as enjoyed by Iceland and Norway - free access to the single market. You won't be EU members, don't kid yourself.

And if Scotland wants to press on for full EU membership that now has a requirement to accept a commitment to eventually joining the euro.

"be blackballed. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Who knows? Since the UK-not England-is the entity with membership of the EU and it then ceases to exist, maybe the English government will have to renegotiate membership terms."

The UK won't cease to exist. One part of the UK comprising 5 million of its 60 million population will secede. The UK will continue and Scotland will be a "new" country. Any argument that the UK would be dissolved logically entitles all the citizens of the UK to vote on its proposed dissolution so that's not a great argument for nationalists since every English Labour supporter would vote for the Union and there are more English Labour supporters than there are people in Scotland.

And in case anyone asks, no the ICJ has no jurisdiction on this topic unless both litigants submit to it. And I don't see why the European Commission or any other Member State would submit to it. They don't have the habit of doing so.

Tue, 2012-01-10 01:27 — Lox (not verified)

Hi FA-good. Why anyone would want to be a member of the EU is beyond me. EEA membership is enough.

Tue, 2012-01-10 06:33 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

Mr Rae, I used to live in Scotland. I know fine what you are like. Unless you have changed, that is. But I see no sign of it from what I read and all this ridiculous bile about the English. You see to be as small-minded as I remember.

Mon, 2012-01-09 17:58 — C Baker

I'm massively pro Scotland and I actually like Salmond's style of politics. He has some very good ideas.

Let's be honest here though. His requirement is an independent Scotland.

Let's blame David for interrupting the timing of a referendum and poking his nose in. Right got that out the way.

However, Salmond must be honest with the Scottish voters. Does he want a completely independent Scotland? Or does he want a partially independent Scotland? I know that ultimately it is for voters in Scotland to decide, but what is Salmond's stance?

Surely, the day he put forward the SNP as a party, his main aim was for independence.

Why does he keep wanting to wait? There must be a right time soon. He can't shout down David Cameron, because the voters aren't ready, or we are in recession etc. Salmond must be ready to face the Scottish electorate with a definite stance.

After all, the rest of the UK is entitled to some sort of finality or solution to this situation. WE can't keep waiting with the threat of independence hanging over us, whilst being made to feel an incumberance for keeping Scotland down.

Let the Scots decides now seems to be what Cameron is saying, but that is wrong too apparently.

What is Salmond's belief. Only and only ever in 2014 can the Scots decide on independence. Sort of makes his pro independence stance totally irrelevant up to that point then. He wants independence, but not yet. Not a very dynamic way of promoting this.

Salmond will come out of this looking foolish as he will look like he is scared of Scottish independence. There is a magic day in 2014 when all Scottish voters will have an epiphany and be ready. How patronising.

Many Scots are ready for independence now. Why doesn't he let them have a say?

Tue, 2012-01-10 14:39 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Fergus Pickering

You spew just as much bile about Scottish Independence as the people you accuse, yes there a a lot of small minded people in Scotland and a awlful lot more because of our larger population in England. You regularly make this point with your small minded comments.

David Cameron has made a stupid error in trying to bully Alex Salmond and its bound to actually increase the support for Independence north of the border. He doesn't want to be known as the last Prime Minister of the UK and has stated so.

I personally would be very grateful if he actually manages to have the exact opposite result.

Mon, 2012-01-09 19:04 — orderfromcha0s

There's only one Scottish Tory MP. Scotland should be governed by those we voted for. Simple as.

Also, because with Scotland out England will be Tory forever, which sucks, I recommend the Scottish annexation of the North of England (and anywhere else that fancies it) into the Federation of People Screwed by the Fucking Home Counties. Perfect.

Flaws in my genius plan: None.

Mon, 2012-01-09 19:05 — iainburnshill

A poll now tells us that 2/3 of Scots support increased devolved powers short of independence. The Prime Minister wants to insist on only 2 questions, thus excluding that majority view.

What can his motives possibly be?

Mon, 2012-01-09 19:41 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

The Scts can have as many devolved powers as they want, so long as they pay for them. But in general they don't want to do that. And devolved powers means, surely, that they no longer send MPs to Westminster, or they send far fewer, say about ten. Also, can the Home Counties have some devolved powers, please. We could call it the nation of Wessex. I like the sound of that.

Mon, 2012-01-09 19:43 — Jock MacSporran (not verified)

Clearly many English media commentators who are normally cheering Cameron to the rafters are having grave doubts about this "look how tough I am" attempt to rig the Scottish referendum. In fact, many, like this writer, are saying Cameron has blundered big time. I think they expected him to come up with something devilishy clever, not a Baldrick-style "cunning plan" that has increased the "yes" vote for Scottish independence 20% overnight.

Mon, 2012-01-09 19:47 — Benjamin Rae (not verified)

Far better article than George Eaton's recent attempts. James Maxwell obviously understands Scottish politics. Cameron may believe he's been a clever clogs but he actually hasn't. It's probably very difficult for him but Cameron should try a different approach. Try being honest and straightforward while making a positive case.
If he is himself he can only aid the independence case

Mon, 2012-01-09 19:50 — Capitalist and Proud (not verified)

Let them go..
I do find the arrogance of Salmond annoying. I heard him state that there would be no passports between Scotland and England. It seems he thinks he will decide the rules of separation. I mean Scotland may not have passports after independence, that's there decision. It will be the English that decide if people entering from Scotland need passports and visas, not Salmond.

Mon, 2012-01-09 19:51 — Benjamin Rae (not verified)

Fergus Pickering,
If you will persist in commenting Scottish topics please try to inform yourself. At present it's patently obvious that your getting your information from the Mail,Sun and Telegraph.

Mon, 2012-01-09 19:51 — mike cobley (not verified)

Communities fracture along ancient boundaries, regions squabble over resources, and time is wasted in the minutiae of self-absorbed matters. And all the time, in glass towers high above London, Washington and Beijing, the cold intellects of global finance look on approvingly.

Mon, 2012-01-09 19:52 — Jock MacSporran (not verified)

C Baker - we Scots scratch our heads and wonder at people like you who call Scottish independence a "threat"?
Why would it be a "threat" to England?
I suspect it's because deep down you know that without Scotland's wealth England is up the proverbial creek starting with "s" without a paddle.

Mon, 2012-01-09 20:05 — Benjamin Rae (not verified)

Jock,
stuff like that isn't that helpful. It's not the majority of English people that's the problem, it's the governing elites both those elected and those not. A large amount of English are as unfairly treated by the system as Scots.

Mon, 2012-01-09 20:10 — Gideon (not verified)

Give us all a referendum whether we want to go with Scotland or continue being betrayed by Westminster.

Mon, 2012-01-09 20:18 — cameronsdemisenowcertain (not verified)

What have we got that Cameron and England wants so badly ? Nobody till now has been interested in how we survive . I hate with a vengence the smug shiny face that is Cameron ! Typical millionaire philosophy , Divide and rule , Well cameron , this guy is not for turning any more. Youve got your gvt. now sod off and leave us to decide how we want to live With the Gvt. we have chosen !!

Mon, 2012-01-09 20:25 — Capitalist and Proud (not verified)

@cameronsdemisenowcertain
He has gave you that choice, you fool.

All you have to do is vote yes.

Mon, 2012-01-09 20:26 — C Baker

@Jockmacsporran.

As an advocate of Scotland the Brand. I've spent ages promoting the cultural, leisure and tourism industry of Scotland. Independence is fine by me. However, for purely selfish reasons and my investment in business in Scotland, i'd like to know what i'm working with.

I'm for Scottish independence by the way. I believe Scotland has some great industies and can be self sufficient.

In business you have to plan ahead. There is too much uncertainty over Scotland and independence and the eu. many people invest in Scotland because it is part of the uk. Also, scotland has many export markets, that it may have all to itself. It is very difficult making long term negotiations if by 2014 the rules may all change.

Mon, 2012-01-09 20:27 — Marbles McMoon (not verified)

"After all, the rest of the UK is entitled to some sort of finality or solution to this situation. WE can't keep waiting with the threat of independence hanging over us"

Why not? In what way does this "threat" affect your daily life?

Mon, 2012-01-09 20:30 — Capitalist and Proud (not verified)

@Marbles McMoon

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/05/26/work-begins-o...

I mean, spolt now and the work can be done ion England.

Mon, 2012-01-09 20:47 — Jock MacSporran (not verified)

Benjamin - "stuff like that isn't that helpful"

Stuff like what? Asking why Scottish independence is a "threat"?

It's the attitude of some English people who regard Scottish independence as a "threat" that isn't helpful.

Occasionally, as with this guy, the truth slips out. They are scared of Scottish independence. They are scared of England sinking without trace.

They haven't got the guts to admit it, but their fear is evident from the use of the word "threat".

There is no chance of them explaining why they use the word "threat". They have never thought about why they do.

They just know that, without Scotland's wealth, they're toast.

Mon, 2012-01-09 20:55 — Capitalist and Proud (not verified)

@Hugh Trowsers

Scotland does not exist as a country. It will have to become independent and then re-join the EU. You can imagine the amount of legality required for the separation of Scotland and England and then Scotland re-joining the EU. Of course the English can demand lots of stipulations, lots of them.

Sadly Alex has not been that honest. You cannot just leave a country and then join the EU without the English agreeing to every single step. I doubt the English will stop you going but do not expect everything Alex says to happen.

I really do want you guys to go. Just requires a lot of paper work.

Tue, 2012-01-10 18:25 — Capitalist and Proud (not verified)

@Lox, I agree with your vision for your economy. I would like that for the UK. Seems we have to import millions and grow continually to create the wealth and jobs to stop it all going ploop.

I think Alex should explain the reality. Actually Cameron has in a sense moved the posts so that a full debate can now take place. Unlike Labour who's only purpose is to keep the union together to further there cheap political agenda. An agenda that neither meets the requirement of Scottish self determination nor resolve the west Lothian question. As long as the cart keeps going seems to be the Labour mantra.

@Alsiatir.

I'm not getting your question. I do not think the the UK will need to dissolve and re-apply for membership of the EU. Unless you have a link to prove otherwise. It will just be Scotland negotiating to leave then negotiating its relationship with the EU. Member, trading partner or exiled. Who knows if the EU will be going by then. Again, Alex needs to be a bit more open.

Mon, 2012-01-09 21:10 — Jock MacSporran (not verified)

C Baker -

So, it turns out the big "threat" is actually to the health of your personal bank balance?! I should have guessed!

Unfortunately though, while you are worrying "for purely selfish reasons" about the state of your bank balance, hundreds of thousands of young Scots are enduring years of spiteful mis-rule by a political party that has less MPs in Scotland than there are pandas.

And don't give me that "I don't know whether it's safer to invest in Scotland" bull. If you thought you'd make money out of Scotland - "the Brand" - as you call it, you'd sell your granny and invest even if Pol Pot was running Scotland.

You clearly haven't done your research properly - or you'd know that investment in Scotland is bound to rise rapidly when investors see it's no longer the cash cow for a bunch of English millionaires whose only interest is in milking the place for all it's worth.

Mon, 2012-01-09 21:27 — Marbles McMoon (not verified)

"It will have to become independent and then re-join the EU. "

I love the way the most authoritative constitutional thinkers in Europe remain divided right down the middle on whether this is true or not, but some idiot on the internet feels able to just cut right through all the debate and state it as a flat-out fact...

Keep taking the tablets, love :D

Mon, 2012-01-09 21:34 — Gerry (not verified)

"whilst receiving more government money per person than in England."

But less than London

"They are able to have a say in English politics, but the English can't in Scottish."

Which is why the SNP never vote on any English issues.

"And, this referendum should include the whole of the UK, we are all still one people for the moment."

Why should it include you? This is typical anglo-centric "we are all one country" nonsense. No Scot, even those in favour of the Union, sees us as "one people". It is you and us.

Mon, 2012-01-09 21:39 — mike cobley (not verified)

Nationalists are useful idiots. Westminster isnt the enemy, ya chumps - its transnational entities like Goldman Sachs, or Exxon, or Koch Industries, or News International, or Monsanto. God, wake up and smell the raw power of greed.

Mon, 2012-01-09 21:43 — Lox (not verified)

@Jim, 19:57. Nice to see you've avoided the temptation to generalise. You'd make yourself look a bit stupid if you started a sentence with the words "They claim....etc". Oh, hang on...

What does the phrase "We are one people" mean in the context of this debate? Perhaps, since there could be political implications of Scottish independence in a European context, we should ask everyone in the EU to vote too? See what a daft idea it is to ask the English, or Welsh, or N Irish to vote on someone else's constitutional status now?

I wonder at Cameron's motives. The Scottish Government will dismiss this out of hand (rightly), and DC isn't daft enough to think that he'll force a referendum before Salmond chooses to have one. Is there any political capital-in England or Scotland-in being seen as a defender of the union? I wouldn't think so. Or is he paving the way for a new Scotland Bill giving devo max in return for a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs?

C.Baker, as far as your posts are concerned, it's refreshing to see a coherent analysis of the question of timing of the referendum. In answer to the question of what Salmond wants that you raised in your first post, he still wants independence. If it comes de facto rather than de jure, he-and most SNP voters-will be happy to be patient.

Jock MacS, I've voted SNP since I was 18, and the last paragraph of your post at 20:10 is an embarrassment to progressive nationalism. For me the whole point of independence is to put us in the position where we can't blame anyone but ourselves for the state of our country. How long will it be after independence before people like you stop blaming the English? As a matter of interest, can you give us examples of the English millionaires milking Scotland for all it's worth?

Capitalist and Proud, hopefully after independence we'll not touch the EU with a bargepole.

Mon, 2012-01-09 21:45 — Capitalist and Proud (not verified)

@Alistair

Your correct it will be the UK, through parliament that decides. The rules between the UK and the EU do not actually need to change. Sadly it is the rules between the EU and Scotland that need to be negotiated. The EU will of course include the UK. Nothing says Scotland has an automatic right to re-join the EU. I also doubt that Germany, France, Spain and Italy, all with separatist regions, will try and annoy one of the worlds leading economies for a market of 5 million people.

Alex is living in a world were the political class are treating him with kid gloves. Scared of the nationalist threat. Once the decision is made the the real negotiations will start, that's if they vote YES. Lots of of stuff will need to be ironed out, lots. I can imagine the Nuclear veto will be a big card for Alex. He may have to accept nuclear subs in Scotland.

I love it when reality bites.

Mon, 2012-01-09 22:01 — C Baker

@Jockmacsporran
I'm comfortable with scottish independence. Do you not want it? I'm sorry, but if promoting Scotland is a problem for you then why?
You act as though I'm saying that the voters in scotland, have no right to vote on independence. I'm saying the opposite. What is your argument? By the way, i am one of those investors from outside. So, are you saying that english people are not allowed to promote scottish businesses?

I won't tell that to the hoteliers and arts organisations in scotland, i hope i have promoted and feel help to make a success. I market goods and services based in Scotland and hope this inceases revenue in Scotland.

I apologise for earning a living wage, on which i pay uk taxes, which i'm sure may at times be used for the nhs and services in scotland. Just as the scots are paying taxes which no doubt help me.

If Scotland do get independence and go down the eu route, i hope you are less xenephobic towards non scots, if they want to work and invest in scotland. Also, there are many fantastic scots working with me in the england. They are my friends and colleagues. Some want independence, some don't.

But most want the question asked.If you want the status quo, fine, then say so.

Mon, 2012-01-09 22:04 — Jock MacSporran (not verified)

Lox - I've been a MEMBER of the SNP for 40 years and I don't need a lecture from you about what I can and can't say. I'm not blaming "the English" as you claim. I am blaming the small cabal of English millionaires who claim to represent the "UK" at Westminster. Everybody knows who they are. Cameron. Clegg. Osborne. How many do you want? The whole list? They are assisted by a crowd of so-called "Scottish unionists" who are also in it for all they can grab. Everybody knows who they are as well.

Mon, 2012-01-09 22:06 — north london geezer (not verified)

The rise of the English Nationalists will be assured with a Scottish victory for the SNP. Come on Scotland!

Mon, 2012-01-09 22:10 — Lox (not verified)

@ C & P, you're spot on. There's no way that Germany or France would do anything to annoy a UK government, is there? Is reality biting yet?

If an independent Scotland wanted to join the EU (God forbid), I doubt we'd be blackballed. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Who knows? Since the UK-not England-is the entity with membership of the EU and it then ceases to exist, maybe the English government will have to renegotiate membership terms.

Mon, 2012-01-09 22:15 — Jock MacSporran (not verified)

C Baker -
You claim to be "comfortable" with Scottish independence yet you go around calling it a "threat".
Clearly you don't have any respect for other people's intelligence.
The only "xenophobia" is coming from you and your "threat" of Scottish independence.
There is no valid reason for you not to invest in Scotland now or after it becomes independent.
It's just a stupid made-up "concern", trying to make Cameron's blunder look less like the mistake it's already turned out to be.

Mon, 2012-01-09 22:18 — Marbles McMoon (not verified)

"Nationalists are useful idiots. Westminster isnt the enemy, ya chumps - its transnational entities like Goldman Sachs, or Exxon, or Koch Industries, or News International, or Monsanto."

Yes, we know. That's why we want our country to be able to elect a government that's far more social-democratic and less neocapitalist than any of the three Westminster parties. It's not exactly a revolution, but the masses are never going to rise in arms in Britain so it's about the best we can do.

Mon, 2012-01-09 22:23 — Fraziel1

@Jim, sorry mate but your statement is complete bollocks.

London receives more per head than Scotland and has almost twice the population. Northern ireland receives more too and just in case you forgot,we contributed 9% of tax revenue last yr with just over 8% of the population, we also have a country more than half the size of England with a 12th of the population so the cost of maintaining infrastructure is significantly higher per head in Scotland.

But you knew and you didnt just get your info from the liars that write for the English Sun and Daily mail now did you? that would just make you look stupid.

Mon, 2012-01-09 22:50 — Lox (not verified)

Hi mikecobley, I see you're still trapped in a mindset where Goldman Sachs, or Exxon, or Koch, etc, represent some kind of demonic threat. Let's look at one of the companies you've cited-Exxon. It employs around 75, 80,000 people, it's revenue last year was around $400bn, and it's earnings before tax were (I think) $150bn or so. Which means that Exxon circulated $250bn into the global economy-in wages, investment, subcontracting, etc. And it could only do that by selling something people want to buy. I'm sure you could give me an examples of how Exxon corrupts civic life and supports inhumane government in the interest of profit: and I'm sure it does. But only because politicians give themselves enough power to make them worth buying. Capitalism isn't evil. It only sours when it colludes with a state apparatus big enough and intrusive enough to allow big business to corner prosperity.

Anyway, I'm off topic. Westminster isn't "the enemy" for me. It's a seat of power over my country, and I'd rather have that here, thanks. You might see nationalism as a distraction: I'd say the same of tired class war rhetoric that's been passé since the late 80s.